Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:56:23.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models, Theories, and Structures: Thirty Years On

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Newton da Costa  and
Steven French
Newton da Costa*
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo
Steven French
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
*
†Send requests for reprints to S. French, Division of History and Philosophy of Science, School of Philosophy, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; da Costa: Department of Philosophy, University of São Paulo, São Paulo S.P., Brazil.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thirty years after the conference that gave rise to The Structure of Scientific Theories, there is renewed interest in the nature of theories and models. However, certain crucial issues from thirty years ago are reprised in current discussions; specifically: whether the diversity of models in the science can be captured by some unitary account; and whether the temporal dimension of scientific practice can be represented by such an account. After reviewing recent developments we suggest that these issues can be accommodated within the partial structures formulation of the semantic or model-theoretic approach.

Type
Metaphilosophy and the History of the Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S116 - S127
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

We would like to thank Otavio Bueno, John Christie, Mary Domski, Grant Fisher, Jon Hodge, and James Ladyman for useful comments on this work. An earlier version was presented to the informal Research Workshop of the Division of History and Philosophy of Science at Leeds.

References

Achinstein, Peter (1968), Concepts of Science: A Philosophical Analysis. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, Richard B. (1962), “Models in the Empirical Sciences”, in Nagel, Suppes, and Tarski 1962, 224–231.Google Scholar
Bueno, Otávio (1997), “Empirical Adequacy: A Partial Structures Approach”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 28: 585–610.10.1016/S0039-3681(97)00012-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1939), Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, Shomar, Towfic, and Suárez, Mauricio (1996), “The Tool Box of Science: Tools for Building of Models with a Superconductivity Example”, in Herfel, William E. et al. (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 137–149.Google Scholar
Czarnocka, Malgorzata (1995), “Models and Symbolic Nature of Knowledge”, in Herfel, William E. et al. (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 27–36.Google Scholar
Da Costa, Newton C.A. and Chuaqui, Roland (1988), “On Suppes' Set Theoretical Predicates”, Erkenntnis 29: 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Costa, Newton C.A. and French, Steven (1990), “The Model Theoretic Approach in Philosophy of Science”, Philosophy of Science 57: 248–265.Google Scholar
Da Costa, Newton C.A. and French, Steven. (forthcoming), “Inconsistency in Science”, in Joke Meheus (ed.), Proceedings of the World Congress of Paraconsistency.Google Scholar
Downes, Stephen M. (1992), “The Importance of Models in Theorizing: A Deflationary Semantic View”, PSA 1992, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 142–153.Google Scholar
French, Steven (1997), “Partiality, Pursuit and Practice”, in Chiara, Maria Luisa Dalla et al. (eds.), Structures and Norms in Science: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 35–52.10.1007/978-94-017-0538-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven and Ladyman, James (1997), “Superconductivity and Structures: Revisiting the London Account”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28: 363–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven and Ladyman, James. (1999), “Reinflating the Semantic Approach”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13: 102–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Mathias (preprint), “The World According to Maxwell”, paper given to the Research Workshop of the Division of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stephan (1995), “Models as a Tool for Theory Construction: Some Strategies of Preliminary Physics”, in Herfel, William E. et al. (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 49–67.Google Scholar
Hendry, Robin (1998), “Models and Approximations in Quantum Chemistry”, in Shanks, Niall (ed.), Idealization in Contemporary Physics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 123–142.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary (1963), Models and Analogies in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heyde, Kris (1990), The Nuclear Shell Model. London: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-97203-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyde, Kris. (1994), Basic Ideas and Concepts in Nuclear Physics, Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G. (1997), “Models and Representation”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S325–S336.10.1086/392611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, Fritz (1954), Superfluids, vol. II. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1968), “What do Physical Models Tell Us?”, in Rootselaar, Bob van and Staal, J. F. (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 385–400.10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71206-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Margie (1999), “Models as Autonomous Agents”, in Morgan, M. and Morrison, M. (eds.), Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 38–65.10.1017/CBO9780511660108.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred (1962), Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the I960 International Congress. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis (1995), “The Cognitive Interplay Between Theories and Models: The Case of 19th Century Optics”, in Herfel, William E. et al. (eds.), Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 105–133.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael L. G. (1980), “Models in Physics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31: 145–163.10.1093/bjps/31.2.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed. [1st ed, 1974]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (1989), Scientific Realism and Semantic Conception of Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1957), Introduction to Logic. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. (1962), “Models of Data”, in Nagel, Suppes, and Tarski 1962, 252–267.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. (1967), Set-Theoretical Structures in Science; mimeograph, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Truesdell, Clive (1984), “Suppesian Stews”, in An Idiot's Fugitive Essays on Science: Methods, Criticism, Training, Circumstances. London: Springer-Verlag, 503–579.10.1007/978-1-4613-8185-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar